Re: Strategy for fine art/photographic quality prints
Re: Strategy for fine art/photographic quality prints
- Subject: Re: Strategy for fine art/photographic quality prints
- From: "Mac" <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:12:30 -0400
Peter,
>
I first used Matchlock/ColorVison9s Profiler RGB. The results were not
encouraging. Given the extent of the >overinking and bleeding on the printed
target, it is hard to imagine how the scanner based measurements could be
>
accurate.
That would seem logical, I also had problems with ProfilerRGB to get good
blues. They tended to shift magenta.
>
I subsequently used ColorBlind MatchBox. The inclusion of an initial
linearisation of the target appeared to be a >major step forward (cf
Matchlock). The results were very encouraging indeed, but not perfect.
For profiling RGB devices, ie: Epson 1270, I have found that skipping the
linearization step produced useable profiles while including it did not.
>
A: For greater accuracy and speed, I am seriously considering the Spectrostar
Spectrocam. Most of what I >have read on the list seems to suggest this would
be a good choice. Should I be considering other instruments?
I have both a SpectroCam and the X-Rite DTP-41. The SpectroCam has a higher
incidence of missed patch readings but several profiling packages have
re-arranged their targets to help with this problem. I would not consider the
SpectroCam to be faster since who have to be so careful with the patch
readings. Once the patches are read, the resulting profiles are almost
identical. If you use a package like ProfilerPro you will rely on the software
that comes with the device to "capture" the readings. I found the software
that comes with the SpectroCam to be more user friendly. Also, you can use the
SpectroCam to profile your monitor.
>
C: Alternatively, or perhaps as well, should I consider upgrading my
ProfilerRGB/ Doctor Pro to Profiler >Pro. Support on this list for Profiler
Pro appears strong, notably from CDT. My experience of Matchlock Profiler >RGB
was disappointing. But it appears that the targets have been redesigned since
I used the programme, Profiler >Pro uses 729 patches, and I would be using it
in conjunction with a spectro rather than a scanner. Is the prevailing
>
confidence in Profiler Pro such that I should consider the not inconsiderable
extra investment in upgrading?
You should expect better results from ProfilerPro over ProfilerRGB. Also, you
can expect better results with ColorBlind MatchBox when you use a hardware
device. In addition to those packages, I have used the new package from
ProfileCity. Currently the ProfileCity profile is my preference. I find the
colors to be the more accurate. I still see a slight magenta shift in the
blues with the ProfilerPro although they have a work around in their
documentation. It's a subjective decision and the results from all three are
good.
>
D: I currently use ColorBlind ProveIt (visually) to calibrate my monitor. It
feels right, but I have no basis as >yet for being sure that it is right. I
have a 212 Apple Colorsync display. Again, given the prevailing opinion in
favour >of Colorvision Spyder + Optical, should I consider a bundle upgrade
from ColorVision to include Profiler Pro, >
>
Spyder + Optical. Or should I save my money and use the SpectroCam in
conjunction with ProveIt.
I used the SpectroCam with Prove-It and found the setup confusing. I think
ColorBlind handles the LUT differently than some of the newer packages. Since
I'm profiling an LCD monitor, ColorVision has no option (06/20/01). I use ICC
Display and find the results to match my profiled printers and a profiled
Lightjet.
>
Peter Brown
Ron